Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Make a mountain out of a molehill (3rd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was SNOW Keep . bd2412 T 15:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Make a mountain out of a molehill[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Make a mountain out of a molehill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. I nominated this years ago but the result was 'no consensus'. I think it is a clear delete under WP:NOTDICT. Bueller 007 (talk) 08:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nothing has changed from the last two times this was considered. It still should be kept, and not deleted. It is not in the dictionary. It is a concept, not just a phrase. It is well documented and sourced. The claim of "Not Dictionary" ignores the fact that this is a CONCEPT and an IDIOM. "Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc., whereas a dictionary entry is primarily about a word, an idiom, or a term and its meanings, usage and history. In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject, uch as Macedonia (terminology) or truthiness. "One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a stub dictionary entry, and stubs are often poorly written. Another perennial source of confusion is that some paper dictionaries, such as "pocket" dictionaries, lead editors to the mistaken belief that dictionary entries are short, and that short article and dictionary entry are therefore equivalent." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (cackle) @ 13:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per WP:SK. As noted above, this seems to be part of a bundle of nominations related to a geographical dispute and seem to have frivolous, irrelevant character contrary to WP:POINT, WP:HARASS and WP:DISRUPT. Warden (talk) 15:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. @Warden: you are incorrect, and you clearly need to read WP:AGF. Please base your argument on the merit of the article rather than a personal attack against motivations. These articles are clearly outside the realm of any territorial dispute. Ansei/Tenmei has created hundreds or thousands of articles; Ryulong and I have nominated only a handful ones that do not belong in an encyclopedia because they are idioms and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. You may wish to consider reading that article as well. Bueller 007 (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. You are incorrect, and you clearly need to read WP:AGF. Please base your argument on the merit of the article rather than a personal attack against motivations. These articles are clearly outside the realm of any territorial dispute. Ansei/Tenmei has created hundreds or thousands of articles; Ryulong and I have nominated only a handful ones that do not belong in an encyclopedia because they are idioms and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. You may wish to consider reading that article as well. Bueller 007 (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly not a dictionary definition, but a sourced discussion of the subject. Acroterion (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This AfD is part of a tag team event -- see here.
It is noteworthy that Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_May_31 includes so many articles in which the same writer invested time and research? --Tenmei (talk) 15:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a tag team. Bueller 007 and I have done this independently so stop assuming bad faith and stick to one account.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously it is more than a "dictionary definition", somebody please format the bare URLs though.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Going with my comments on the other articles of this nature, it's more than just a dictionary definition. I say keep it.—Σosthenes12 Talk 16:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12[reply]
  • Snow Keep per WP:DEADHORSE 24.151.116.25 (talk) 17:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Historic idiomatic expression of sufficient stature to support encyclopedic coverage. Sourcing of this piece as it sits is weaker than it should be, but suffice it to say that an idiom this old has generated sufficient scholarly commentary over the centuries to pass GNG. Carrite (talk) 17:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is my favorite phrase but it is obviously more than a dictionary definition as others have pointed out. JayJayWhat did I do? 21:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Noted expression and cemented in culture. It is obviously more than a dictionary definition as others have pointed out. It looks to me like a case of WP:OVERZEALOUS. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'd go farther than Doug C. in describing these noms. Anyway, not a DECDEF, idiomatic expression, proper subject for an encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Idioms are a thing apart from many other forms of communication. Not only do they carry a denotation that may be dealt with a a dictionary definition, but in a cultural context they carry implications, associations and connotations. These are especially useful for those who are either not native speakers of English, or who come from other places. Because we are presumably addressing the needs of a worldwide audience, this type of wikipedia article is especially useful. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This isn't just a dictionary definition, its a proper article, complete with references from reliable sources. Dream Focus 12:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the merits - there's more here than the typical DICDEF. That said, given this discussion, we might also need to tag the article as self-referential. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Make_a_mountain_out_of_a_molehill_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1138047199"